09

- 00 97

- cv

P e c o n ic B a yk e e p e r, In c . v. S u ff o lk C o u n ty

1 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS 2 F OR THE S EC OND C IR C U IT 3

________________ 4 August Term, 2009 5 (Argued: Dec ember 15, 2009 Dec ided: Marc h 30, 2010) 6 Docke t No. 09-0097-c v 7

________________ 8 9 P ECO N I C B AYKEEPE R , I NC ., KEV I N M C A L L I S TER , A L F R ED C H I O FO LO , 10 11 Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts , 12

B v. B 13 14 S U FF O LK C OU NT Y , S U FF O LK C OUNTY D EP A RT M EN T O F P U BL I C W O RKS , D I V I SI O N O F V EC TOR 15 C ONTR OL , 16 17 Defendants-A ppellees

. 18 19 20

________________ 21 Be fore : 22 C ABRANES , P ARKE R , 23 Circuit Judge s, 24 25 AND C AS TEL , 26 District Judge .* 27

________________ 28 29 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Easter

n 30 Di str ic t of

Ne w Y or k ( Ar thu r D . Sp a tt, Judge ) upholding the def endants’ mosquito-contr ol 31 activities as lawf ul under the Clea

n Water Ac t, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq. The judg ment of the 32 district court is vacated insofar as it held that the def

endants’ spr aying a ctivities were 33

__________________________ 34 * The Honor able P. Kevin Castel, United States D istrict J udg e for the Southern District of New Y ork, sitting by

desig nation. 352

uniformly in compliance w ith the Fede ral Insecticide , Fung icide and Rode nticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1 136, et seq. 2 ; va c a te d in so fa r a s it he ld, in t he a lte rn a tiv e , th a t th e tr

uc ks and he lic op te rs us e d to 3 spray

the pesticides we re not “ point sources” for the pur poses of the CWA; and af firmed insofa

r as it held that the County ’s dre dg ing a ctivities did not vi olate the CWA. 4 5

_______________ 6 D A N I EL E. E ST R IN 7 , Pace E nvironmental L itigation Clinic, I nc., White Plains, NY 8 (Matthew R. Atkinson, Atkinson & H eff ron L L P, of counsel) 9 for Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts . 10 11 C H RI STO PH ER A. J EF F R EY S , As sis tant S uf fo lk C ounty

Attor ne y (C hr ist ine Ma lf

i, Suffolk County

Attorney , on the brief

) 12 Suffolk County Attorney ’s Off

ice, 13 Hauppa g e, NY 14 for De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lle es. 15

________________ 16 17 C AS TEL , District Judge : 18 19 De fe nd ants Suf fo lk C ounty

and the Suf fo lk C ounty

De pa rtme nt o f P ub lic Wor

ks , 20 Division of Vector Control (collectively , the “County ”) e mploy various mea sures to combat the 21 sp re a d o f m os qu ito -b or ne ill ne sse s, inc lud ingthe us e of pe sti c ide s inte nd e d to kil l a du lt mosquitoes in mi d-flig ht. 22 Plaintiffs Peconic B ay keepe r, Inc., Ke vin McAllister and Alfr ed 23 Chi of

olo c on te nd

that th e County

ha s v iol a te d th e Cle an Wate r A c t ( the “ CWA” ), 33 U. S.C. § 1251, et seq., in its application of c erta in pesticides, and, se parately , 24 its dr e dg ingof mos qu ito ditches. 25 Plaintiffs, who commence d this action under the CWA’s citizen-suit provision, 33 26 U. S.C. § 1 36 5( a )( 1) , s ou g ht d e c larator y and inj un c tiv e re lie f, a s w e ll a s c ivi l pe na lti e s to be pa id to the United States Tre asury . 27 Followinga six -day bench tr ial, the district court found that the 28 disputed mosquito-control activities were lawful unde r the CWA. J udg ment was e ntere d for the defe ndants, and plaintiffs now a ppeal. 29 30 For the re asons stated be low, we a ffirm in par t on an alter

nate g round not rea ched 31 by

the district court, va cate the judg ment in part, and r emand to the district cour t for fur ther3 1 proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. 2 Ba ckg round 3 W e b e g i nb y s ur v e yi n g th e o r i g i n s o f

th e C o un ty ’ s m o s qu i t o - c o n tr o l e f f o rt s . In 4 1993, the County

found a pr esenc e of mosquito-borne disease f or the fir st tim e in 75 y ear s. 5 There have sinc e bee n approximately thirty repor ted ca ses of mosquito-transmitted illness in the County , four of

which re sulted in death. 6 West Nile Virus is the County ’s most common 7 mosquito-borne illness, but there ha ve bee n instances of

malaria transmittal, including the infec tion of two children in 1999. 8 Offic ials also fea red a n outbreak of Easte rn Equine 9 En c e ph a lit is, a

ra re dis e a se wi th h ig h f

a ta lity rate s th a t is kn ow n to be c arr ie d b y mos qu ito e s in 10 the northea stern United States. The rise in mosquito-borne illnesses prompted the New Y ork 11 State Commi ssioner of He alth to declar e a public he alth threat in Suffolk Count y in 1994, 1996 and 1999-2006. 12 13 Mo sq uit oe s g e ne ra lly

br e e d in sta g na nt w a te rs , s uc h a s ma

rs h a re a s. Th e County 14 ha s e mpl oy e d d if fe re nt t a c tic s to c ur

b th e mos qu ito po pu latio n. I t ha s u se d nume ro us pe sti c ide s, including two 15 marke ted under the bra nd names Scourg e and Anvil. The County sprayed 16 Sc ourg e and

Anvil in u ltr a -l owvo lum e (“ ULV” ) a e ro so l mi sts thr ou g h a pp ara tus e s atta c he d to 17 trucks and he licopters. When sprayed in ULV form, Scour g e and Anvil create a “ fogcloud” that

e nv e lop s and

kil ls m os qu ito e s. 18 19 The labe ls for Scourg e and Anvil were approve d by the Environmental Protec tion 20 Ag ency

(the “ EPA”) pur suant to the Fe dera l I nsecticide , Fung icide and Rode nticide Act (“F I FRA” ), 7 U.S.C. § 21 13 6, e t se q. , w hic h is the statut or y re g ime g ov e rn ingthe la

be lin g and

us e 22 of

pe sti c ide s. Un de r t

he he a din g “ Envir onme nta l H a zar ds ,” Sc ourg e ’s la be l st a te s in

pa rt : 23 Th is p e sti c ide is h ig hly toxic to f

ish . F or te rr e str ia l us e s, do no t a pp ly dir e c tly to4 1 water , to are as whe re sur fac e water is pre sent or to intertidal ar eas be low the 2 m e an h i g h w a t e r m ar k

. D r i f t an d r un o f f f r o m tr e a t e d s i t e s m ay b e h a z ar d o us to 3 fish in adjace nt water s. Consult y our State’s F ish and Wil dlife Ag ency befor e 4 treating suc h water s. 5 6 As to U L V a

pp lic a tio ns , th e Sc ourg e la be l st a te s: “ Spr ay

pa rk s, c amps ite s, wo od land s, a thl e tic 7 fields, g olf course s, swamps, tidal marshes, r esidential ar eas a nd municipalities around the 8 outside of apa

rtment buildings, re staurants, store s and wa rehouse s. Do not spray

on cropla nd, 9 fee d or foodstuff

s. Avoid direct a

pplication over lakes, ponds and stre ams.” As unde rstood by 10 the County , the phra se “[a]void direct application over” when used in re fer ence to ponds and streams re quires the County to turn off ULV jets when a ircra ft fly above bodie s of fre sh water

. 11 12 The Anvil labe l contains similar restrictions ag ainst applications “dire ctly to water , or to are as 13 wh e re surf

a c e wate r i s p re se nt o r t o inte rt ida l are a s b e low the me an h ig h w a te r m ark ,” and a lso 14 allows spray

ing in, among othe r ar eas, “ swamps” a nd “mar shes.” 15 In car rying out its mosquito-control measure s, the County is under the ove rsig ht 16 of

the Ne w Y or

k St a te De pa

rtme nt o f E nv ir onme nta l Co ns e rv a tio n ( the “ DE C” ), an a g e nc y wi th EPA-deleg ated a

uthority to enforc e the CWA in the state. N.Y. Envir. Conser v. L

. § 17 17-0801 (authorizing N ew Yor

k State to issue CW A per mits); 33 U.S.C . § 18 1342(b) ( authorizing a pproved 19 state s to iss ue CWA p e rm its ). As pa rt of its CWA e nf

or c e me nt p ow e rs , th e DE C is su e s State Pollut ant Discha

rg e Elimination Sy stem (“SPDES”) per mits. N.Y. Envir. Conserv. L

. § 20 17- 0701

. 21 In authorizing the discha rg e of a pollutant, an SPDES permit is equivalent to a Na tional 22 Pollut ant Discha rg e Elimination Sy stem (“NPDES”) permit issued by the EPA pursuant to the CW A. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a) , 1342(b). 23 24 The DEC re viewed a nd approve d maps delineating the a rea to be sprayed by

the 25 County . The DEC a lso ga ve the County

g uidance as to whethe r it was re quired to re ceive an5 1 SPDES permit prior to spra ying, or whether the pesticide a

pplication was e x empt from the 2 CW A’s per

mitti ng require ment. The DEC a dvised the County that so long a s its spraying 3 c omp lie d w iththe F I F RAla be l, t he CWA d id n ot r e qu ir e iss ua nc e of an SPD ES p e rm it p ri or

to the application of pesticides. 4 The DEC re ache d this conclusion as ea rly as 2001, and dire cted the 5 County

acc ording ly . The EPA later codified the principle that a n application of pe sticides 6 c on sis te nt w ithF I F RAla be lin g did

no t c on sti tut e the dis c ha

rg e of a po llutant, and

the re fo re did not violate the CWA, 7 first throug h an Interim Statement, 68 Fe d. Reg . 48,385 (Aug . 13, 2003), and then in a F inal Rule, 40 C.F.R. § 8 122.3(h). 9 Th e dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d th a t th e County ’s a pp lic a tio n o f S c ourg e and Anvil fu lly 10 confor

med with the FI FRA labe ling. It held that FI FRA-c ompliant spraying a ctivity did not 11 amount to the discharg e of a pollutant into navigable water s from a point sourc e, and the ref ore did not violate the CW A. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 12 1311(a) , 1362(12). The district court also held that 13 the sp ra

yinga c tiv ity

wa s c on sis te nt w iththe CWA b e c a us e the a pp lic a tio n o f p e sti c ide s v ia 14 spray

jets attache d to trucks and he licopters did not amount to discharg e fr om a “point source ,” 15 as that phra se is define d in the statute. 16 Se pa rate fr om t

he ULV a dmi nis tr a tio n o f p e sti c ide s, the County a lso ma int a ins a 17 network of

mosquito di tches, the pur pose of whic h is to drain surfa ce w ater s from marshla nds 18 and ther eby

reduc e mosquito breedingg rounds. Orig inally constructe d in the 1930s, the 19 County ’s g ri d o f m os qu ito dit c he s a lso pr ov ide a ha bit a t f or nativ e fi shsp e c ie s, su c h a s k ill ie s, 20 that e a t mo sq

uit o la rv a e . Pl a int if

fs c on te nd e d th a t c e rt a in o f t he County ’s dr e dg inga c tiv iti e s, 21 purportedly

undertaken in an e ffor

t to maintain the ditches, dischar g ed dre dg ed matter such as 22 silt and foliag e into the wate rs, and did not fa ll within t he CWA’s permitting e x emption for the maintenanc e of dr ainag e ditches a s set forth at 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f) (1)( C). 23 They also asser

ted6 1 that the County

dug new maintena

nce ditche s, so that the dredg ing a ctivities broug ht “an a rea of navig able wa

ters into a use to whic h it was not previously subject,” 2 trig g eringthe statute’s

rec apture provision and re quiring an SPDES. 33 U.S.C . § 1344(f) (2) 3 . 4 Th e dis tr ic t c ourt he ld t hat th e mos qu ito dit c he s c on sti tut e d “ dr a ina g e dit c he s” 5 under the CW A, and r ejec ted testimony , in part on cr edibility g rounds, that the def

endants we re 6 dredg ing ne w ditches. As a result, the district cour

t concluded that the County ’s ditch7 maintenanc e ac tiviti es we re e x empt from the SPDES permitting re quirement, a nd that the County did not run afoul of the statute’s re captur e provision, which 8 “re moves the ava ilability of the . . . exemption 9 ” wh e n a n a re a of navig a ble wate rs is b ro ug ht i nto a ne w u se . 3 3 U .S. C. § § 1344(f) (1)( C) & ( f)( 2); J une v. Town of Westfield, NY, 370 F.3d 255, 258 n.3 ( 2d Cir. 2004). 10 Standard of Re view 11 12 We reviewa district cour t’s finding s of fa ct followinga non-jury trial under a 13 clea

rly err oneous standar d. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 52(a) (6); Cera so v. Motiva Enters., L L C, 326 F.3d 14 303, 316 (2d Cir. 2003). A district cour t’s application of la

w to the fa cts is review ed de novo. 15 Henr

y v. Champlain Enters., 445 F .3d 610, 617-18 (2d Cir. 2006). 16 Discussion

I . T he L awf

uln e ss o f t

he County ’s Spr ayingof

Pe sti c ide s. 17 A. FI FRA- C o mp l i an tS p ra yi n g. 18 19 Be cause the district court ba sed its holding princ ipally on the conc lusion that the 20 County ’s spray

ing a ctivities complied with FI FRA a nd there fore wer e lawf

ul under the CWA, 21 we be g in by

revie wing the two statutes. 22 FI FRA func tions as “a c omprehe nsive scheme to regulate the use , sale a nd 23 labeling , of pesticides – pa rtly throug h EPA reg istration of the substance s, including r eview,7

suspension and ca

ncellation of r eg istration.” 1 N.Y. State Pesticide Coal., Inc. v. Jorling, 874 F.2d 2 115, 117 (2d Cir. 1989). Unde r F I FRA, it is unlawful “to use a ny reg istered pe sticide in a 3 mann e r i nc on sis te nt w ithits la be lin g .” 7 U .S. C. § 13 6j( a )( 2) (G ). Th e EPAha s h a d a uth or ity 4 over implementation of FI FRA’s la bel-re g istration proce ss since 1970. See B ates v. Dow 5 Ag roscienc es L .L .C., 544 U.S. 431, 437 (2005). 6 Th e EPAa lso ha s a uth or ity ov e r t he imp le me ntatio n o f t

he CWA. 33 U. S.C. 7 § 1251(d). Ena cted by Congr ess in 1972, the CWA’s purpose is “to re store and ma intain the chemica l, phy sical, and biolog ical integ rity of the Nation’s water s.” 33 U.S.C. § 8 1 2 5 1 ( a )

. It 9 prohibits “the dischar g e of a ny pollutant by

any person,” unless done in compliance with a provision of the statute. 33 U.S.C. § 10 13 11 (a ). Th e phra se “ dis c ha rg e of a po llutant” is d e fi ne d to 11 me an “ any

a dd iti on of any po llutant t o n avig a

ble wate rs fr om a

ny po int so ur c e .” 33 U. S.C. § 1362(12). 12 Th e wo rd “ po llutant, ” in t

ur n, is d e fi ne d a s in c lud ing“ c he mic a l w a ste s. ” 33 U. S.C. § 13 1362(6). The CW A does not def ine the phra se “c hemical wa stes.” 14 The statute’ s prohibition aga inst the addition of a pollutant into naviga ble wate rs is qualified by

the EPA’s powe r to issue NPDES permits. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)

. 15 Section 1342(a) (1) 16 authorizes the EPA to “issue a pe rmit for the discha rg e of a ny pollutant, or 17 c omb inatio n o f p oll uta nts , n otw ith sta

nd ingse c tio n 1 31 1( a ) o f t his Ti tle ,” su

bje c t to a pu bli c 18 hear ing a

nd cer tain other c onditions. I t also g rants the EPA powe r to allow states to implement their own CWA permitting re g imes. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). 19 In the State of Ne w York, a n SPDES 20 permit issued by

the DEC has the sa

me forc e as a

n NPDES permit issued by the EPA. See 21 Catskill M ountains Chapter of T rout Unlimited, I nc. v. City of Ne w York, 273 F .3d 481, 486 (2d 22 Cir. 2001) (“I

n New Y ork, the NPDES prog ram is administered by NYSDEC and re fer

red to a s the State Polluti on Dischar g e Elimination Sy stem (‘SPDES’).”) 23

.8 In 1 2003, the EPA issued its I nterim Statement attempting to give g uidance on FI FRA c ompliance a

nd NPDES permitting. The 2 Inte ri m State me nt c on c lud e d th a t a la be l3 compliant application of pe sticides “to control pe sts that are pr esent ove r waters of the United 4 States that results in a portion of the pe sticides beingdeposited to wate rs” doe s not require an 5 NPDES permit. 68 Fed. Re g . at 48387. I t rea soned that pursua nt to FI FRA, the EPA is cha rg ed 6 with consideringwhether a pesticide will perfor

m its i ntended f

unction without having a

n 7 un r e a s o n a

b ly a dv e r s e e f

f e c t o nth e e n v ir o n me n t. I d

. T h e In te r im St a te me n t n o te d

th a t t h e CW A define s “che mical waste s” as one cate g ory of “pollutant,” 8 but concluded that FI FRA-a pproved 9 pesticides applied a ccor ding to their labelingcannot c onstitut e “c hemical wa stes” bec ause the y 10 are “ EPA -e va luate d p ro du c ts d e signe d, purc ha se d a nd a pp lie d to pe rf

or m th e ir int e nd e d p ur

po se 11 of controllingtarg et org anisms in the environment.” 68 F ed. Reg . at 48388. 12 Th e re a so nin g of the Inte ri m State me nt w a s f or ma lly a do pte d b y

the EPAin 13 2005, when it issued the F inal Rule. The F inal Rule stated in rele vant par t that an NPDES 14 permit was not re quired for “[t] he application of pesticides consistent with all rele vant 15 re qu ir e me nts un de r F I F RA(i .e ., tho se re le va nt t o p ro te c tin g wate r q

ua lity ) .

. . .” 40 C.F .R. § 16 122.3(h). As a

n example, the Final Rule c ited the followingas an instanc e of F I FRA17 c omp lia

nt s pr ayingthat w ou ld n ot r e qu ir e an N PDE S pe rm it: 18 The a

pplication o f p es t icides to control pests that ar e pre sent over w ater s of the 19 Un ite d St a te s, inc lud ingne ar s uc h water s, whe re a po rt ion of the pe sti c ide s w ill 20 un avo ida bly be de po sit e d to wate rs of the Un ite d St a te s in

or de r t o ta

rg e t th e pe sts 21 eff

ectively ; for example, when inse cticides a re aeria lly

applied to a f

orest ca nopy 22 wher e waters of the United States may be pre sent b el o w t he ca nopy or whe n 23 pesticides ar e appl i ed o v eror nea r water for

control of a dult mosqui toes or other 24 pests. 25 I d. § 26 122.3(h)( 2). 27 L ess than two months after judgme nt was ente red by the district court in this case ,9 1 the Six th Circuit vacate d the EPA’s F inal Rule as contra ry to the text of the CWA. Nat’l Cotton 2 Council of Am. v. E.P.A., 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009). The petitioners in National Cotton 3 Council included plaintiff Peconic Ba y keepe r, Inc., whose timely petition to thi s Court was consolidated by

the J udicial Panel on Multidistrict L itigation 4 wi th p e tit ion s p e nd ingin t he Sixth 5 Circuit. I d. at 932 & n.3. In vaca ting the E PA’s Final Rule, the Six th Circuit held that the 6 a pp lic a tio n o f p e sti c ide s “ ‘a bo ve ’ o r ‘ ne ar’ wate rw ay s” that le ave “ e xce ss” or “ re sid ua l” pesticide in navig able waters mee ts the CW A’s def inition of “chemica l waste.” 7 I d. at 936 - 37. 8 For

this, among othe r re asons, the Six th Circuit concluded that the F inal Rule was contr ary to the 9 CW A’s text and must be vacated. I d. at 940. 10 After the Six th Circuit ruled in National Cotton Council, t he EPA moved to stay 11 the mandate . I t argued, amongother thing s, that immediate issuance of a ma ndate va catingthe 12 F ina l Ru le wo uld be un du ly

dis ru pti ve to s tate and

fe de ra l pe rm itt inga

uth or iti e s a

nd wo uld 13 trig g er a

rash of citizen suit s. The Six th Circuit gr anted the E PA’s motion, and stay ed issuance 14 of the mandate until April 9, 2011. Case No. 06-4630 ( 6th Cir. J une 8, 2009). The EPA has 15 publicly

announce d that it “plans, befor e the r uling take s eff

ect ( April 9, 2011), to issue a f inal 16 g ener al NPDES permit for c overe d pesticide a pplications,” and to he lp develop new state-leve l 17 pe rm itt ingpla

ns . Se e Natio na l Po llutio n D isc ha rg e El imi natio n Sy ste m (NPD ES) , Co ur t G ra nts 18 EPA 2-Yea

r Stay , http:// cfpub.e pa.g ov/NPDES/HOME.CFM? PROGRAM_I D=41 ( last visited 1 9 M ar . 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 ). T h e E P A h as n o ts o u gh tfu rt h er re v i ew o f t h e N at i o n al C o t t o nC o un ci l ru l i n g, 20 and the Supre me Court has denie d petitions for ce rtiorar i filed by cer tain industry

intervenor s. 21 Se e Cr op L if

e Am . v . B ay

ke e pe r, 78 U. S.L .W. 34 79 (U .S. F e b. 22 , 2 01 0) (N o. 09 -5 33 ); Am

. Fa rm Bur eau F ed’n v. B ay

keepe r, 22 78 U.S.L .W. 3479 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2010) ( No. 09-547). 23 We e xpre ss n o v ie ws on the re a so nin g of

Natio na l Co tto n Co un c il. Ho we ve r, in10 1 light of the Six th Circuit’s stay of mandate, the F inal Rule remains in for ce thr oug h April 9, 2 2011. There fore , if the EPA adhe res to its expressed intent, then by April 9, 2011, the EPA and 3 state authorities will have implemented a ne w per mitti ng framework f

or the a pplication of 4 pesticides. In the interim, the application of pesticides consistent with the F inal Rule remains 5 lawf

ul. 6 In the district court, plaintiffs soug ht a dec laratory judgme nt that the County ’s 7 spray

ing of pesticides violated the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342. The Dec lara tory J udg ment 8 Act conf

ers on f eder al cour

ts “unique and substantial discr etion in decidingwhether to declar e 9 the ri g hts of

lit ig ants .” Wilto n v . Se ve n F a lls Co. , 5 15 U. S. 2 77 , 2 86 (1 99 5) ; 28 U. S.C. 10 § 2201(a) (“A ny

court may

decla re the rig hts and other leg al re lations of any interested pa

rty

. . . 11 .”) ( emphasis adde d). “The propriety of issuing a

decla ratory judgme nt may

depend upon 12 equitable c onsiderations and is also infor med by the teac hings a

nd experience conce rningthe 13 functions and e x tent of fe dera l judicial power.” Gre en v. Mansour , 474 U.S. 64, 72 (1985) 14 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Among the re levant conside rations in exercising 15 discretion is “whe ther the judg ment will serve a useful purpose in clarify

ing or settling the le g al 16 issues involved.” Dua ne Rea de, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine I ns. Co., 411 F.3d 384, 389 (2d 17 Cir. 2005). 18 Eq uit a ble c on sid e ratio ns c ouns e l a g a ins t de c lari ngthe ri g hts of the pa rt ie s a s to 19 past spray

ing in c ompliance with the EPA’s inter im guidanc e and its F inal Rule. Spraying that

oc c ur s p ri or

to e xpir a tio n o f t

he Sixth C ir c uit ’s sta

y of mand a te , a

nd is 20 consistent with the EPA21 a pp ro ve d F I F RAla

be lin g , r e ma ins in c omp lia nc e wi th t he F ina l Ru le . O nc e the sta y of mand a te 22 expires, a y et-to-be finalized CW A per mitti ng sy stem will gove rn the a pplication of pesticides. 23 Simi larly , beca

use the stay

of mandate maintains the status quo, and the EPA ha s expressed the11 1 intent to establish a nationwide per mitti ng proce ss, injunctive relief is unne cessa ry to preve nt the 2 alleg ed ong oing or future violations. See Weinber g er v. Romer o-B arc elo, 456 U.S. 305, 316 3 (1982) ( CW A does not re quire injunctive re lief, and pe rmits courts to “contemplate [ ] the 4 e xer c ise of

dis c re tio n a

nd ba lanc ingof

e qu iti e s” in c ra ft inginj un c tiv e re lie f) . B e c a us e 5 defe ndants’ F I FRA-c ompliant spraying is not contra ry to gove rningregulatory

standards, the re 6 lik e wi se is n o b a sis to i mpo se c ivi l pe na lti e s p ur su ant t o th e re le va nt C WA p ro vis ion , 3 3 U .S. C. 7 § 1319(d). See Fr iends of the Ea rth, Inc. v. L aidlaw Envtl. Servs. (T OC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 8 18 5- 86 (2 00 0) (u

po n a fi nd ingof

vio latio n, CWA c ivi l pe na lti e s a re le vie d to e nf

or c e imm e diate 9 compliance and dete r future violations). 10 Th is d oe s n ot, ho we ve r, e nd our r e vie w o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ing s w ith 1 1 re s p ec tt o th e C o un ty ’s s p ra yi n g ac t i v i t i es m ad e i np urp o rt edco mp l i an ce wi thFI FRA. Al th o u gh 12 the re cord indicates that the def endants’ a

pplication of pesticides w as, in the main, consistent 13 with the EPA-appr oved F I FRA labe l, it also revea ls instances of a eria l spraying ove r cr eeks. 14 Suc h s pr ayingmay have be e n c on tr ary

to t he re le va nt F I F RAla

be lin g of Sc ourg e and

Anvil , 15 which re spectively forbid “dir ect a

pplication over lakes, ponds and stre ams” or “ are as whe re 16 surfa ce w ater

is present . . . .” The district cour t acknowle dg ed the e x istence of evidenc e that the 17 County

may have sp ra

y e d a bo ve va ri ou s c re e ks , b ut d id n ot a de qu a te ly e xpla in t he ba sis fo r i ts 18 finding that the County fully complied with the pesticides’ label instructions. 19 No t a ll s pr ayinga c tiv ity a bo ve or ne ar w a te r i s at va

ri anc e wi th t

he F I F RA 20 la

be lin g . F or

ins tanc e , s pr ayinga

bo ve the “ me an h ig h w a te r m ark ” of a c oa stl ine is p e rm iss ibl e 21 under the labelingof Anvil. Scourg e allows for application “a s a mosquito adulticide in . . . 22 swamps [and] t idal marshes . . . .” The district cour t also hear d testimony

that pursuant to DEC 23 g uidance , the County operated with differ ent re strictions for spra ying a ctivities in or around tidalThe de finition of “cr eek” includes “[a] narrowrec ess or inlet in the coa st-line of the sea ,” as 1 well as “ any

narr ow ar

m or corne r of the se a.” 3 O x ford Eng lish Dictionary 1142 (2d ed. 1989)

. 12 1 wetlands, a s opposed to fre shwater wetlands. It also may

be that the “ cre eks” ide ntified in the 2 rec ord ar e not bodies of wa ter c overe d by

the labelingbeca

use, for example, they

may be 3 classified a s “tidal marshe s.” B e c a us e the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t e xpla in t

he ba sis fo r i ts 1 4 conclusion that all spra ying w as in compliance with the FI FRA labe l, the judgme nt of the district 5 c ourt

is v a c a te d in so fa

r a s it he ld t hat th e County ’s sp ra

yinga c tiv iti e s w e re un if

or mly in

c omp lia nc e wi th t he F I F RAre qu ir e me nts 6 , and the c ase is re manded f or fur ther fa ctfinding . The 7 district court may , in the exercise of discretion, allow the tr ial rec ord to be re opened. B . T he Di str ic t Co ur

t’ s A lte rn a te Ho ldi nga s to Poi nt S ourc e s. 8 9 As an indepe ndent basis for f inding a ll spraying a ctivities lawful under the CWA, 10 the district court c oncluded that the County ’s spray applicator s attache d to trucks and he licopters 11 wer e not “point source s.” The district c ourt rea soned that bec ause the trucks and he licopters 12 discharg ed pesticide s into the air, any discharg e wa s indirect, and thus not fr om a point source. 13 We disag ree . Under the CWA, a “point source ” is define d as “a ny discerna ble, 14 confine d and discre te conve y ance , including but not limited to any . . . container , rolling stock 15

. . . o r v e sse l or

oth e r f loatin g c ra ft , f

ro m w hic h p oll uta

nts are or may be dis c ha rg e d. ” 33 U. S.C. § 16 13 62 (1 4) . T he “ ‘d e fi nit ion of a po int so ur c e is t o b e br oa dly

int e rp re te d’ ” and

“ ‘e mbr a c [es ] 17 the broa dest possible definition of any identifiable c onvey ance from which pollutants mig ht enter water s of the United States.’ 18 ” Cordiano v. Me tacon Gun Club, Inc., 575 F .3d 199, 219 (2d Cir . 2 00 9) (q

uo tin g Da g ue v. City

of B ur lin g ton , 9 35 F .2 d 1 34 3, 13 54 -5 5 ( 2d Cir . 1 99 1) ); 19 see 20 also Concer

ned Ar ea Re sidents for Env’t v. Southview F arm, 34 F .3d 114, 118-19 (2d Cir. 1994) 21 (a truc k with attache d manure sprea der qua lified as “r olling stock” or a “ container ” and the ref ore13 1 wa s a

“ po int so ur c e ” ); L e a g ue of

Wild e rn e ss D e fe nd e rs v. F or sg re n, 30 9 F .3 d 1 18 1, 11 85 (9 th 2 Cir. 2002) (the CWA’s definition of point source “enc ompasses an a ircra ft equipped w ith tanks spray ing pe sticide from mec hanica l spray ers dire ctly over c overe d water s.”). 3 Her e, the spra y 4 appar atus was attached to truc ks and helicopte rs, and wa s the source of the discha rg e. The 5 pesticides we re discha rg ed “f rom” the sour ce, a

nd not from the air . The wor d “fr om” is defined 6 “to indicate a

starting point,” and also de notes the “sour ce or orig inal or moving forc e of something . . . .” Webster’s Third International Dictionary Unabr idge d 913 (2002). 7 The district 8 court’s c onclusion that the pesticides we re not discha rg ed fr om a point source w as in err or. I I . T he L awf

uln e ss o f t

he County ’s Dr e dg ingAc tiv iti e s. 9 10 Separate and a part fr om the County ’s use of pe sticides, the plaintiffs cha lleng ed 11 the County ’s dr e dg ingof its mos qu ito dit c he s. “ Dr e dg e d s po il” is o ne c a te g or y of po llutants

rec og nized in the CW A. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6) 12 . U nle ss o the rw ise e xce pte d, the ir dis c ha rg e int o navig able wa

ters re quires an N PDES permit. 33 U.S.C . § 1311(a) . Howeve r, 13 the CWA s e ts forth ca teg ories of “ [n] on-prohibited discha rg e of dr edg ed or f

ill material.” 33 U.S.C. § 1344 14 (f)

. 15 Th is i nc lud e s mate ri a ls d re dg e d f or “ the ma int e na

nc e of dr a ina g e dit c he s. ” 33 U. S.C. § 1344 (f) 16 (1)( C). 17 Th e dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d th a t th e County ’s a c tiv iti e s a s to mos qu ito dit c he s, 18 which we re dugin the 1930s to drain wate r fr om wetlands in order to reduc e mosquito breeding 19 g rounds, wer e lawf ul under the CWA and did not require a per mit. The district court found that 20 “[t] he purpose of the ditche s orig inally was to re duce mosquito production both by drainingoff 21 surfa ce w ater

and by introducingfish into the are as whe re mosquitoes would bre ed.” It held that the mosquito dit ches w ere there fore “dra inag e ditches,” and 22 that no cre dible evidenc e supported 23 plaintiffs’ conte ntion that the County cre ated ne w mosquito dit ches. This finding , based in pa rt14 1 o nana s s e s s me n t o f w it n e s s c r e d ib il it

y , w a s n o t c le ar ly

e r r o n e o u s . B e c a

u s e th e CW A 2 establishes a pe rmit ex emption for the maintena nce of draina g e ditches, a

nd the ditches ha d as 3 their purpose the dra ining of surfa ce w ater s, we a g ree with the district court that the County ’s 4 ma int e na

nc e a c tiv iti e s w e re e xemp t f ro m th e CWA’ s p e rm it r e qu ir e me nts . 3 3 U .S. C. § 1344(f) (1)( C). 5 The re cord a lso supports the conclusion that the County ’s ac tiviti es did not 6 “bring [] an ar ea of the navig able wa

ters into a use to whic h it was not previously subject,” a

nd 7 thu s d id n ot f

a ll w ith in t

he CWA’ s r e c a

ptu re pr ov isi on , w hic h w ou ld r e qu ir e an SPD ES p e rm it 8 for a

rea s of navig able waters brought into new use. 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f)( 2); J une, 370 F .3d at 258 n.3 9 . 10 Plaintiffs also challeng ed wor k perf ormed in 2000 at one location, the Willi am Floyd Estate, conte nding that it included the digg ing of new ditche s. 11 The re cord indicates that 12 the DEC issued a notice of violation for this work. The district court found a s a fa ct that the 13 work at the Wil liam Floyd Estate wa s perf ormed pursua

nt to permits issued by

the DEC and 14 Army

Corps of Eng ineer s. At trial, the district court he ard te stimony of a County

employ ee who 15 testified that the wor k occur red pur suant to a nationwide pe rmit from the Army Corps of 16 Eng ineer s, and that the U.S. F ish and Wil dlife Service sponsored the pr oject and obta ined 17 ne c e ssa

ry pe rm its . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ingwa s n ot c le arl y e rr on e ou s. 18 Conclusion 19 F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , w e ho ld a s f

oll ow s: 20 (1) We VACATE the judg ment of the district cour t insofar a s it held that the 21 County ’s sp ra

yinga c tiv iti e s w e re un if

or mly in c omp lia

nc e wi th t he F I F RAre qu ir e me nts ; 22 (2) We VACATE the judg ment of the district cour t insofar a s it held, in the 23 a lte rn a tiv e , th a t th e tr uc ks and he lic op te rs us e d to sp ra

y the pe sti c ide s w e re no t “ po int so ur c e s”15 1 for the pur

poses of the CWA; and 2 (3) We AF FI RM the judgment of the district court insofa

r as it held that the 3 County ’s dre dg ing a ctivities did not vi olate the CWA. 4 Any a pp e a l f ro m a su bs e qu e ntl y

e nte re d f ina l ju dg me nt s ho uld

be re fe rr e d to thi s pa ne l. 5